Группа авторов

Conflicts, Crimes and Regulations in Cyberspace


Скачать книгу

each asked to provide a clear definition of what they meant by cyberspace in their text. This is, of course, important since, in this field, diversity prevails; thus, in 2018, the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence (CCD COE) in Tallinn identified 29 definitions of cyberspace (Bigelow 2018). We have chosen to adopt the 2006 US definition from the National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations since it seems neutral: “[...] an operational domain characterized by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to create, store, modify and exchange information via networked information systems and associated physical infrastructures”5. The authors gathered here, whether jurists or political scientists, also adhere to the perspective of studying the cyberspace object as a sociotechnical system, that is to say, as a set of social units in dynamic interactions, organized around information and communication technologies, which orientates toward science and technology studies (STS)6.

      Balzacq, T. and Cavelty, M.D. (2016). A theory of actor network for cyber-security. European Journal of International Security, 1–2, 176–198.

      Bigelow, B. (2018). The topography of cyberspace and its consequences for operations. 10th International Conference on Cyber Conflict. NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn.

      Calvo, A. (2014). Cyberwar is war: A critique of “hacking can reduce real-world violence”. Small Wars Journal, June [Online]. Available at: www.smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/cyberwar-is-war [Accessed 18 June 2020].

      Cavelty, M.D. (2018). Cybersecurity research meets science and technology studies. Politics and Governance, 6(2), 22–30.

      Gartzke, E. (2013). The myth of cyberwar: Bringing war in cyberspace back down to earth. International Security, 38(2), 41–73.

      Gorwa, R. and Smeets, M. (2019). Cyber Conflict in Political Science: A Review of Methods and Literature. ISA, Toronto.

      Laurent, S.-Y. (2021). Ce que le cyber (ne) fait (pas) aux relations internationales. Études Internationales.

      Loiseau, H. and Waldispuehl, E. (2017). Cyberespace et science politique, de la méthode au terrain, du virtuel au réel. Presses de l’Université de Québec, Quebec City.

      Loiseau, H., Ventre, D., Aden, H. (2021). Cybersecurity in Humanities and Social Sciences: A Research Methods Approach. ISTE Ltd, London, and Wiley, New York.

      Musso, R.P. (2010). Le Web : nouveau territoire et vieux concepts. Annales des Mines. Réalités industrielles, 4, 75–83.

      Reardon, R. and Choucri, N. (2012). The Role of Cyberspace in International Relations: A View of the Literature. ISA, San Diego.

      Türk, P. and Vallar, C. (2017). La Souveraineté numérique. Le concept, les enjeux. Mare & Martin, Paris.

      Valeriano, B. and Maness, R.C. (2018). How we stopped worrying about cyber doom and started collecting data. Politics and Governance, 6(5), 781–799.

      1 Introduction written by Sébastien-Yves LAURENT.

      2 1 See Musso (2010).

      3 2 This makes it all the more important to highlight the role of pioneers Loiseau and Waldispuehl (2017) and Loiseau et al. (2021).

      4 3 For context in the literature, see Gorwa and Smeets (2019).

      5 4 The coordinator also wishes to thank Michel Courty for his work in structuring the manuscript.

      6 5 Quoted by Kuehl (2009).

      7 6 See two particularly successful examples, Balzacq and Cavelty (2016) and Cavelty (2018).

      8 7 See Reardon and Choucri (2012).

      9 8 See Laurent (2021).

      10 9 See Turk and Vallar (2017).

      Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

      Текст